Board of Registration in Medicine, 418 Mass. 380, 392 (1994) quoting Commonwealth v. DeMinico, 408 Mass. 230, 235 (1990) ([t]he law should not, and does not, give the opinions of experts on either side of [a]n issue the benefit of conclusiveness, even if there are not contrary opinions introduced at the trial). Analysis The City has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it had reasonable justification to bypass Mr. Ruggiero.

Herridge v, Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). Here, the Commission assigns little credibility to the testimony of Appellant, whose testimony was vague and whose memory of the underlying facts was suspect. Conversely, the Commission finds the testimony of the Towns witnesses, Leslea Noble and Lester Gerry, to be highly credible and competent.

Board of Registration in Medicine, 418 Mass. 380, 392 (1994) quoting Commonwealth v. DeMinico, 408 Mass. 230, 235 (1990) ([t]he law should not, and does not, give the opinions of experts on either side of [a]n issue the benefit of conclusiveness, even if there are not contrary opinions introduced at the trial). Applying these principles to the facts of this appeal, the reasons provided for the BPDs bypass of Mr.

Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass 154, 165 (1995). il The Appointing Authority did not have reasonable justification to suspend the Appellant for fifteen (15 days) without pay. There was no reliable evidence to show that the Appellant intentionally violated ADM ~ 25. He attempted to comply with the new Paystation system as best he could, without proper training and believed that he was doing so.

Board of Registration in Medicine, 418 Mass. 380, 392 (1994) quoting Commonwealth v. DeMinico, 408 Mass. 230, 235 (1990) ([t]he law should not, and does not, give the opinions of experts on either side of [a]n issue the benefit of conclusiveness, even if there are not contrary opinions introduced at the trial). The ruling in the instant case is based on the wording of the applicable Medical Standard, on which the Kavaleski court relied.

Board of Registration in Medicine, 418 Mass. 380, 392 (1994) quoting Commonwealth v. DeMinico, 408 Mass. 230, 235 (1990) ([t]he law should not, and does not, give the opinions of experts on either side of [a]n issue the benefit of conclusiveness, even if there are not contrary opinions introduced at the trial).

Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 164-65, 648 N.E.2d 745, 750-51 (1995); Embers of Salisbury, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commn, 401 Mass. 526, 530-31, 517 N.E.2d 830, 832-33 (1988); School Comm. of Wellesley v. Labor Relations Commn, 376 Mass. 112, 120, 379 N.E.2d 1077, 1081 (1978).

Herridge v, Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). Here, the Commission finds the testimony of all witnesses to be highly credible. Deputy Chief Martino credibly testified as to the screening process (flawed as it was) employed by the MBTA and conducted of all candidates (including Appellant). Lieutenant Lenehan credibly testified that he did not recall many specifics about Appellants interview.

Herridge v, Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). Here, the Commission assigns little credibility to the testimony of the Appellant. The Appellant admitted at the hearing before the Commission that she filed a false report with DOC and gave false testimony to DOCs investigator regarding an alleged threat she 18 received on August 6, 2002 (thereby undermining her credibility generally).

Herridge v, Board of Registration in Medicine, 420 Mass. 154, 165 (1995). As indicated above, the Appellant provided sworn testimony only as to the identities of three (3) men appearing as subjects in a video surveillance tape (Exhibit 18). As this was the only testimony offered by the Appellant in this case (who declined to testify on her own behalf) I can make no finding as to her credibility.